12 ms·

Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

229 points by mfld 3y ago

mfld 3y ago
The intermittent fasting group adhered to the prescribed eating interval 6.1 days per week. In the calorie restriction group, 68 percent achieved the calorie reduction target over six months. The intermittent fasting group lost more weight, reducing body weight by an average of 3.56 percent in six months, which was significant. Under calorie restriction, body weight fell by an average of 1.78 percent, which was not significant.
- ac2u 3y ago
  You should change the title to more accurately reflect that. The first question someone has when reading that title is "effective at what?" and there's room in the title for it to say so without the reader having to click through.
  - mfld 3y ago
    I believed that "more effective at loosing weight" would be self-evident in that context.
    - ac2u 3y ago
      Appreciate that, however people use I.F theorising that it helps all sorts of things, insulin sensitivity, lifespan, inflammation markers etc, not just weight.
kreutz 3y ago
Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction
- FacZap 3y ago
  Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.
  - jitl 3y ago
    In the case of this study, the comment is accurate
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    As someone who has been doing, IF for 11 years and has moved to OMAD (more or less) I’d say…not really Yeah, you might gorge yourself on occasion and have one our two day surplus, but it’s not something that anyone would regularly do because it’s not only uncomfortable, but it also messes with your gut. So in function while you’re correct, it is possible theoretically to ingest the same calories in a tiny window of eating as somebody who eats throughout a whole day, your body can’t process food that quickly and will give you significant gastrointestinal distress
    - amanj41 3y ago
      OMAD it will always be pretty hard to eat a lot. But, for slightly more accommodating feeding windows, people can still eat plenty especially if they have higher density foods
  - bcx 3y ago
    While your point is valid, the researchers in the paper cite evidence from other studies that intermediate fasting reduces calorie intake. I think the OP has a pretty reasonable point, intermediate fasting, restricts calories to certain hours, calories restriction in general restricts calories to a quantity. Probably worth exploring the citation to know how well this holds. “Evidence shows that limiting the eating window to 6 to 10 hours within a 24-hour period naturally reduces energy intake by 200 to 500 kcal/d”. I linked to full txt above if you want to dig
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
- amanj41 3y ago
  It's not, but the title is extremely misleading. You MUST be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. What the study shows is that simply by doing intermittent fasting, people naturally tend to eat fewer total calories per day, and can end up in a caloric deficit. Please people, do not simply think that intermittent fasting makes you lose weight. If you still have a propensity to eat junk food or just a lot of food even in fasting windows, you could still be gaining weight or staying at maintenance.
  - boringds 3y ago
    Good to note it's not impossible to be in a calorie deficit and not lose weight. Lipedema for instance makes it impossible to lose fat on the legs and arms. Hard to get a diagnostic for it too. Other than that your comment is right, you can also not lose weight when doing IF, it's all about calories in calories out.
  - TuringNYC 3y ago
    Personal take here -- I try to time-restrict eating. I'll brush my teeth right after dinner and essentially close off eating. Git commit. Git push. Done. The nice thing about this is how it prevents snacking at night because you're in an "off" state that is binary. I cant trick myself into thinking a tiny bit will be OK, because any tiny bit wrecks the binary state of fasting.
idianal 3y ago
Important to note that all participants in the study had Type 2 diabetes, a mean age of 55 years, and a mean BMI of 39.
- bequanna 3y ago
  That is quite heavy. It makes you wonder if the intermittent fasting made the participants more aware of when they were actually hungry vs eating mainly out of habit/boredom/coping mechanism.
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    It doesn't make me wonder that. If I follow an overly strict diet, I wind up thinking about food all of the time. Calorie counting is a form of strictness: I'm continually putting in more time thinking about food. How many calories was that? Do I need to log everything? Do I figure it out when I'm planning and add the extra food thought time there? And so on. I've only lost weight through specific dietary changes that are easy to follow. Usually, this has been things like changing daytime food to something more healthy or fewer calories. Or simply putting more vegetables in my diet. I'm currently pescetarian, but rarely eat fish. Intermittent fasting is in this second category. There isn't much to keep track of and I wouldn't have to put all that much extra thought into it. Some folks could put little to no thought into it. It makes it easier than anything strict.
bcx 3y ago
My tldr: intermittent fasting is easier to adhere to than calorie restriction. Or in plain English: it’s easier to get someone to eat less by getting them to limit windows in which they eat than to ask them to eat less and keep the same routine. Tre = intermittent fasting Cr = calorie restriction The TRE group reported being adherent with their eating window a mean (SD) of 6.1 (0.8) days per week (87% of days) over 6 months (eFigure 2 in Supplement 2). In the CR group, 17 participants (68%) reported being adherent with their prescribed calorie goals during the 6-month trial (eFigure 2 in Supplement 2). Participants in the TRE group reported finding their diet intervention easier to adhere to compared with CR group participants (eFigure 3 in Supplement 2 Full text: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2811116 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
wiz21c 3y ago
"Participants were aged 18 to 80 years with obesity and T2D." Do the results apply to people who have no obesity and no T2D ?
jitl 3y ago
“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that adherence to a calorie deficit using a time restricted eating plan is easier than adherence to the same calorie deficit by explicitly tracking calories. If you can adhere to a calorie deficit through other means, you won’t lose weight faster by adding intermittent fasting while maintaining the same calorie intake.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  > more effective for weight reduction and glycemic control...in adults with Type 2 diabetes
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  There was an article, maybe a year ago, that reported that Tre and three meals a day with the same calories had the same effect. Of course the problem is, I have a hard time just eating three meals a day and not snacking in between.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  there's a bit of psychology at play too I bet if you have a 'daily budget' of 1500 calories, personally I would much rather skip breakfast and have a burger and fries for dinner than 3 'slim meals' throughout the day (i'd probably stick to that more readily too)
  - jitl 3y ago
    Adherence is all about psychology! Although what works for one person might not work for another as well; if time restricted eating or calorie counting doesn’t work for you, try a different strategy. My target right now is 1600 kcal & 150g protein, and my usual meal plan is a 300kcal protein frappe coffee thing in the morning, a lunch around 450kcal like gumbo, a 550kcal dinner like apricot glazed salmon w/ couscous, and then ~300kcal of Ben & Jerrie’s ice cream for dessert. For me adherence is super easy because those are all foods I love to eat, I’m full all day so I never want to snack, and I’m actually eating more dessert than before this diet because I don’t feel guilty about it anymore (yay decadence). My girlfriend tried the same plan, but something about just knowing about the budget makes her feel totally trapped and she ends up binge eating snacks almost out of “revenge” after a few days. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
neves 3y ago
Interesting to know that you don't need to become a dull and boring person without social live if you want to do TRE :-) The interesting bit for me: "Participants in the TRE group were adherent with their eating window on a mean (SD) of 6.1 (0.8) days per week" I like TRE, but I don't follow it religiously. Some day of the week I will drink a wine with my partner or drink a beer with my friends. The night I drink I also eat a breakfast the morning after. Nice to know that it works if sometimes you fail to follow.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  People also have some luck on other diets by having a "cheat day" one day every week or so. I mean, eating well 85% of the time is better than not doing it at all and most folks will still run an overall calorie deficit. And for a lot of people, if they can make 75-85% of their food decently healthy, they'll be better off.
xyst 3y ago
Not surprised. I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption. So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal. Anecdotally, reducing intake works! side note: the sugar addiction was real and “retraining” my body and mind was the real effort. The mental fortitude to ignore the usual junk I grab at the grocery store is well understated.
- jitl 3y ago
  I increased my sugar intake by 1/2 tbsp brown sugar in the morning and about a fifth of a pint (300kcal) of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream every night, I eat 3 meals a day up from 2, and also lost 20 lbs in 4 months! At the end of the day, it’s all about the numbers — my intake is 1600kcal, and estimated expenditure is 2240kcal – and whatever makes it easy to stick to the plan. For me it’s ice cream.
  - bobmaxup 3y ago
    Yes, that is the energy content of the food you eat. Your body still has to metabolize it, store it, and use it. There are sometimes extreme variations on how that takes place between individuals.
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      Exactly this. There's still a ton of study needed on gut flora and other mechanisms of metabolising calories. Some people (like me) will almost literally get fat just by walking past the candy isle in the store, my body will suck up every single Joule of energy from any food I ingest. Meanwhile I have a friend who was actually prescribed by a doctor to eat more fat (butter, specifically) every day because they just don't hold on to calories _at_all_. Everything goes straight through. He's been stick thin for the 25 years I've known him, no matter what he eats and how and when.
  - 3y ago
kumarvvr 3y ago
I do intermittent fasting. Its basically structured dieting. I fast upto 12 noon, eat no later than 8 pm. But it works only if junk food and processed foods are stopped.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
Calorie restricting for a long time will let your body adapt to live with that. I'm curious what the result would be if you add a cheatmeal every 3-4 days. Note: This is regulated by leptin as far as I know - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin > Leptin’s main function is to help regulate the long-term balance between your body’s food intake and energy use (expenditure). Leptin helps inhibit (prevent) hunger and regulate energy balance so that your body doesn’t trigger a hunger response when it doesn’t need energy (calories). As far as I'm aware. Eating less for a longer time and you're body will reduce energy expenditure and etc.. PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;) PS2. Not an expert. Read a lot about it and this seemed to theory seemed to fit my practical experience with losing weight ( -25 kg. in about 6 months. | from > 100 kg to ~ 77kg ) I think I found the original source: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/bodyweight-regulation-leptin-and-more https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/bodyweight-regulation...
- TuringNYC 3y ago
  >> PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;) How do you deal with the hunger resulting from high energy expenditure. I find myself famished after a tough workout (interval training / strength training). I realize there are other benefits to interval training / strength training (e.g., endurance, toning, increasing mass), but I wonder if it runs counter to weight loss given how much hunger it induces.
  - NicoJuicy 3y ago
    Never be hungry, don't overdo eating. Smaller portions, more regularly. I love a handful of cachewnuts. Spread more carbs in the morning, lean to more protein in the evening. Calorie cycling: https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-calorie-cycling https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-calorie-cycling Based on personal experience here. You're doing HITT? It's possible for a short intensive workout ( under 25 minutes) that you're body isn't taking from fat, but trying to get it from food you ingested. That's why it's "suggested" to do lower intensity workouts. If you do heavy training, you can eat more than you did before too. Check https://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/Harris-Benedict-Calorie-Calculator-For-Men.cfm https://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/Harris-Benedict... -> Activity Factor Guidelines There are plenty related root causes, eg. sugar craving. Perhaps add some dextrose to your drink. https://www.polar.com/blog/sugar-and-workouts-how-it-can-help-your-training https://www.polar.com/blog/sugar-and-workouts-how-it-can-hel... Also a lack of vitamins could create cravings ( eg. Because of a lack of sunlight/sleep), you need more vitamins since you workout more. Losing weight is 60-70% eating correctly, the rest is exercise. I'm still inclined to believe that gaining muscle is the best way to go for losing weight/fat as a male. If you do weights: Don't measure you're weight every day ( muscle is heavier than fat), if you want to check that, do it weekly ( preferably with a fat % counter. Same time of day, same water intake. Since it works based on conductivity / water. Water intake can change results slightly). Try the mirror instead. Building muscle is slow, but losing muscle is slow too... ( Less strict "diet", useful for holidays) Cardio is fast, gaining it again is fast too. Ps. If you're always hungry, I think you're going to extreme and you're body is starving versus the exercise you're doing. Note: random thoughts. Feel free to give some feedback so I understand the situation a bit better. Fyi. I'm not considered an expert on the topic. I read a lot + personal experience and experimenting. You're mileage may vary ;)
uberduper 3y ago
In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day. Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime eating habit. Especially if you also shift your sleep window earlier. So if you stop eating at 8PM and make sure you're asleep by 10PM, you're less likely to get hunger pangs.
- pard68 3y ago
  I lost a lot of weight on a calorie restricted diet, from 215lb to 165lb over the course of a few years. But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. I much prefer things like intermittent fasting or keto, I can think about what I am eating less and it's really raised my quality of life.
  - gopher2000 3y ago
    > But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. In the beginning it certainly is. But once I did it for a while, I found that I had developed a mental understanding for what various foods represented in terms of calories and could navigate it with much less effort. I started with spreadsheets and apps. IMO much of the value in calorie counting stems from those early weeks where you suddenly realize how many calories each food represents - and relative to that how filling you find them.
    - pard68 3y ago
      It wasn't so bad for me when I started in college. Everything was prepared in the cafe and had calorie count on it. When I graduated and got married we started making all our own food and that was when it became depressing for me.
- nerdface 3y ago
  I once heard a great tip to prevent those pre-bedtime snacks. After dinner, brush your teeth as if you’re going to bed. Your brain already associates that with “no more food” and so programmatically dissuades you from eating. It’s always worked for me.
kraig911 3y ago
If you're a diabetic like me I'd recommend don't do intermittent fasting. I almost died. My blood sugar goes from 300+ to 50ish some days and when I tried this I never felt hunger. I felt like I was about to slip in a coma all day.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  That's interesting! How long were your fasts?
  - kraig911 3y ago
    Basically I was trying to skip lunch. I'd wake up and eat oatmeal, and some protein (usually yogurt) and I'd try and make it to dinner time. No Bueno.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Type 1 I assume? TFA was a study on people with Type 2.
T3RMINATED 3y ago
[dead]
curation 3y ago
In my homeless youth I intermittently fasted out of no choice. I was really skinny.
krasney 3y ago
The most recent critiques I've seen for intermittent fasting have to do with how it may not preserve lean body mass unless you are extremely conscientious about getting enough protein (and probably resistance training). That is, if you don't get enough protein during your feeding windows, you'll lose lean body mass along with fat mass, which harms body composition. I'd expect to see the TRE arm losing more lean body mass. Table 2 seems to show this effect. The TRE arm lost more lean body mass and fat mass, although without a difference in visceral fat. If compliance is the issue, I'd be curious to understand what regime can help TRE participants comply with a minimum protein threshold in their diet to minimize the risk of lean body mass loss.
- jitl 3y ago
  To be fair, any substantial calorie restriction TRE or not means you will lose some muscle/lean mass. I’m not sure table 2 shows evidence that TRE is more detrimental to lean mass than CR given that the TRE group had fewer calories on average than the CR group.
  - f311a 3y ago
    It’s possible to minimize the loss by consuming large amounts of protein, but some amount of it will be converted to glucose unfortunately. The difference is very drastic, you can preserve a lot of muscle mass by doing proper diet vs IF. It all adds up when you so it for 6 months.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
  Different intermittent fasting regimens result in different results re: losing lean muscle. The longer intermittent fasting cycles seem to show no significant loss of lean muscle. (i'm way too lazy to go find the studies to back this up claim, but they're out there somewhere)
  - f311a 3y ago
    An old fashioned way of fasting preserves muscle mass way better due to hormonal response. It only kicks in after 30-40 hours of fasting. I don’t think that a lot if people practice 3-4 of fasting when doing IF.
01100011 3y ago
Latest I've heard is that it all boils down to calories and that intermittent fasting (time restricted eating or 8/16)makes you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period. Better to eat less calories and consume small amounts of protein throughout the day. https://youtu.be/G3-EW7nWCbU https://youtu.be/G3-EW7nWCbU I tried IF a couple times in my life. First time, coupled with lots of endurance exercise, worked great but I was constantly fighting to retain muscle. Second time I didn't exercise as much but also didn't lose any weight. I did develop extreme post-meal fatigue though, and that has persisted for years since stopping IF.
- stevedt 3y ago
  > you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period if this is the reason, then wouldn't adjusting your macros to ensure enough protein mitigate this?
  - monopoliessuck 3y ago
    The body doesn't store protein in any real capacity. Fat is stored in adipose tissue and carbs in glycogen, but protein must be available in the bloodstream when needed for muscle maintenance and synthesis. Even if you up your dietary protein during the feeding window, if you're fasting for lengthy periods of time where the protein has already been utilized for fuel, then the muscles are starved and catabolic. There's no passive protein depot built into our physiology muscles can pull from.
    - joecool1029 3y ago
      Is it possible some of the area it uses protein from is old cells? I'm thinking parts of digestive system, immune system, old cells it scrubs and reclaims some protein from when fasting. Still catabolic but useful catabolic?
      - f311a 3y ago
        It is called autophagy and happens regularly in our body, but in very small amount. Do experiece greater results, you need prolonged fasting (3-5 days)
2-718-281-828 3y ago
intermittent fasting always leads to calorie restriction in the mid and long run. due to secondary effects like increased insulin sensitivity, less time to eat, more conscious relationship towards food, different food preferences etc.
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
Imo it's still hard to stick to after a while. You're out with friends and want to eat/drink, or you get depressed and want to eat/drink during your fasting window, or you end up eating later than you should due to the time window. I've been struggling with keeping on track lately because I don't have a goal I'm working towards to keep me accountable. I lost a bunch of weight, but then had no real reason to keep it off other than "for health", and now the weight's coming back.
876978095789789 3y ago
> Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 8-hour TRE (eating 12 to 8 pm only, without calorie counting), CR (25% energy restriction daily), or control. Longer fasting periods, including 16/8 TRE and alternate-day fasting, have been shown to cause a disproportionate amount of lean body mass loss: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771095 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... >In this RCT, a prescription of TRE did not result in weight loss when compared with a control prescription of 3 meals per day. Time-restricted eating did not change any relevant metabolic markers. Finally, there was a decrease in ALM in the TRE group compared with CMT. Together, the results of this study (1) do not support the efficacy of TRE for weight loss, (2) highlight the importance of control interventions, and (3) offer caution about the potential effects of TRE on ALM. Future studies should be aimed at understanding the effects of early vs late TRE and protein intake or timing as a means to offset the loss in ALM. ALM = Appendicular (i.e., limb) Lean Mass. One of the authors of this study, Ethan Weiss, is a cardiologist and was a big proponent of TRE, but after the results of his own study came in showing drastic loss of LBM in TRE group (to the point that most of the weight lost was LBM) and no added benefit, he completely stopped doing TRE, stopped recommending it, and went to Twitter and the news media to publicize the harm, eg: https://www.insider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fasting-may-not-boost-weight-loss-2020-9 https://www.insider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fast... X isn't showing his Twitter thread, but there's a copy of it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/j1fav8/effects_of_timerestricted_eating_on_weight_loss/g71eria/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/j1fav8... >In the in-person cohort, the average weight loss in the TRE group was 1.70 kg. Of this, 1.10 kg (~ 65% wt lost) was lean mass; only 0.51 kg of weight lost was fat mass. Loss of lean mass during weight loss is normal but typically accounts for 20% to 30% of total weight loss >So in summary: 1) no matter how you slice it, prescription of TRE is not a very effective weight loss strategy; 2) There was no advantage to TRE when compared to a proper control group; 3) What weight was lost looked to come more from muscle mass than fat mass
jefurii 3y ago
I tried 15h fasting (8pm-11am). It was fairly easy to maintain but it absolutely killed my ability to focus and concentrate while working from home. Then one day I had a nice breakfast and it was like night and day.
haskellandchill 3y ago
[dead]
andrew_gs 3y ago
I restrict myself to a 4 hour eating window, and vary that window daily based on what's convenient to me. So some days I'll go 24 hours between windows if that's how things line up. There are a bunch of advantages for me. I have 3 kids and I always start my window after 10am. Without the restriction I'll end up finishing off their breakfasts and snacking when I'm making their school lunches. Or late at night it's easy to resist the temptation of hot milk and cookies as it's outside of the window. By myself I'm actually a pretty disciplined eater, but with kids and a partner who is a chronic feeder I need the window as a barrier against lazy eating.
shunyaekam 3y ago
Anyone tried intermittent fasting while working out regularly? How did your schedule look?
- thirdsun 3y ago
  I'm a cyclist that rides anywhere between 200 and 500 Km a week (depending on the season) and does IF 20-4 from monday to friday. I usually eat after work at 4 PM. You can absolutely do low intensity workouts in a fasted state and I regularly do so after work. In fact it helps burning fat reserves. Just don't overdo it. On weekends, when I do my longer and/or more intensive rides I make sure to fuel properly though. I simply ignore fasting on those proper cycling days.
aitchnyu 3y ago
Tangential, are there benefits not caused by calorie restriction? I was convinced my body was repairing itself while fasting, and that my body generates no extra hunger pangs.
d4rkp4ttern 3y ago
After reading Benjamin Bikman’s book (Why we Get Sick) I think the other benefit of IF/TRF besides caloric restriction is that you’re also reducing your “insulin abuse”, I.e you are avoiding having elevated insulin levels for a longer period, which helps with improving insulin sensitivity. This book (highly, highly recommend) makes the case that insulin resistance is at the root of many metabolic and other disorders. I think there’s too much focus on weight loss in these threads, but even those with normal weight and BMI can have issues due to insulin resistance.

229 points by mfld 3y ago

mfld 3y ago

The intermittent fasting group adhered to the prescribed eating interval 6.1 days per week. In the calorie restriction group, 68 percent achieved the calorie reduction target over six months. The intermittent fasting group lost more weight, reducing body weight by an average of 3.56 percent in six months, which was significant. Under calorie restriction, body weight fell by an average of 1.78 percent, which was not significant.

ac2u 3y ago
You should change the title to more accurately reflect that. The first question someone has when reading that title is "effective at what?" and there's room in the title for it to say so without the reader having to click through.
- mfld 3y ago
  I believed that "more effective at loosing weight" would be self-evident in that context.
  - ac2u 3y ago
    Appreciate that, however people use I.F theorising that it helps all sorts of things, insulin sensitivity, lifespan, inflammation markers etc, not just weight.

kreutz 3y ago

Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction

FacZap 3y ago
Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.
- jitl 3y ago
  In the case of this study, the comment is accurate
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  As someone who has been doing, IF for 11 years and has moved to OMAD (more or less) I’d say…not really Yeah, you might gorge yourself on occasion and have one our two day surplus, but it’s not something that anyone would regularly do because it’s not only uncomfortable, but it also messes with your gut. So in function while you’re correct, it is possible theoretically to ingest the same calories in a tiny window of eating as somebody who eats throughout a whole day, your body can’t process food that quickly and will give you significant gastrointestinal distress
  - amanj41 3y ago
    OMAD it will always be pretty hard to eat a lot. But, for slightly more accommodating feeding windows, people can still eat plenty especially if they have higher density foods
- bcx 3y ago
  While your point is valid, the researchers in the paper cite evidence from other studies that intermediate fasting reduces calorie intake. I think the OP has a pretty reasonable point, intermediate fasting, restricts calories to certain hours, calories restriction in general restricts calories to a quantity. Probably worth exploring the citation to know how well this holds. “Evidence shows that limiting the eating window to 6 to 10 hours within a 24-hour period naturally reduces energy intake by 200 to 500 kcal/d”. I linked to full txt above if you want to dig
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
amanj41 3y ago
It's not, but the title is extremely misleading. You MUST be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. What the study shows is that simply by doing intermittent fasting, people naturally tend to eat fewer total calories per day, and can end up in a caloric deficit. Please people, do not simply think that intermittent fasting makes you lose weight. If you still have a propensity to eat junk food or just a lot of food even in fasting windows, you could still be gaining weight or staying at maintenance.
- boringds 3y ago
  Good to note it's not impossible to be in a calorie deficit and not lose weight. Lipedema for instance makes it impossible to lose fat on the legs and arms. Hard to get a diagnostic for it too. Other than that your comment is right, you can also not lose weight when doing IF, it's all about calories in calories out.
- TuringNYC 3y ago
  Personal take here -- I try to time-restrict eating. I'll brush my teeth right after dinner and essentially close off eating. Git commit. Git push. Done. The nice thing about this is how it prevents snacking at night because you're in an "off" state that is binary. I cant trick myself into thinking a tiny bit will be OK, because any tiny bit wrecks the binary state of fasting.

idianal 3y ago

Important to note that all participants in the study had Type 2 diabetes, a mean age of 55 years, and a mean BMI of 39.

bequanna 3y ago
That is quite heavy. It makes you wonder if the intermittent fasting made the participants more aware of when they were actually hungry vs eating mainly out of habit/boredom/coping mechanism.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  It doesn't make me wonder that. If I follow an overly strict diet, I wind up thinking about food all of the time. Calorie counting is a form of strictness: I'm continually putting in more time thinking about food. How many calories was that? Do I need to log everything? Do I figure it out when I'm planning and add the extra food thought time there? And so on. I've only lost weight through specific dietary changes that are easy to follow. Usually, this has been things like changing daytime food to something more healthy or fewer calories. Or simply putting more vegetables in my diet. I'm currently pescetarian, but rarely eat fish. Intermittent fasting is in this second category. There isn't much to keep track of and I wouldn't have to put all that much extra thought into it. Some folks could put little to no thought into it. It makes it easier than anything strict.

bcx 3y ago

My tldr: intermittent fasting is easier to adhere to than calorie restriction. Or in plain English: it’s easier to get someone to eat less by getting them to limit windows in which they eat than to ask them to eat less and keep the same routine. Tre = intermittent fasting Cr = calorie restriction The TRE group reported being adherent with their eating window a mean (SD) of 6.1 (0.8) days per week (87% of days) over 6 months (eFigure 2 in Supplement 2). In the CR group, 17 participants (68%) reported being adherent with their prescribed calorie goals during the 6-month trial (eFigure 2 in Supplement 2). Participants in the TRE group reported finding their diet intervention easier to adhere to compared with CR group participants (eFigure 3 in Supplement 2 Full text: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2811116 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

wiz21c 3y ago

"Participants were aged 18 to 80 years with obesity and T2D." Do the results apply to people who have no obesity and no T2D ?

jitl 3y ago

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that adherence to a calorie deficit using a time restricted eating plan is easier than adherence to the same calorie deficit by explicitly tracking calories. If you can adhere to a calorie deficit through other means, you won’t lose weight faster by adding intermittent fasting while maintaining the same calorie intake.

francisofascii 3y ago
> more effective for weight reduction and glycemic control...in adults with Type 2 diabetes
readthenotes1 3y ago
There was an article, maybe a year ago, that reported that Tre and three meals a day with the same calories had the same effect. Of course the problem is, I have a hard time just eating three meals a day and not snacking in between.
jareklupinski 3y ago
there's a bit of psychology at play too I bet if you have a 'daily budget' of 1500 calories, personally I would much rather skip breakfast and have a burger and fries for dinner than 3 'slim meals' throughout the day (i'd probably stick to that more readily too)
- jitl 3y ago
  Adherence is all about psychology! Although what works for one person might not work for another as well; if time restricted eating or calorie counting doesn’t work for you, try a different strategy. My target right now is 1600 kcal & 150g protein, and my usual meal plan is a 300kcal protein frappe coffee thing in the morning, a lunch around 450kcal like gumbo, a 550kcal dinner like apricot glazed salmon w/ couscous, and then ~300kcal of Ben & Jerrie’s ice cream for dessert. For me adherence is super easy because those are all foods I love to eat, I’m full all day so I never want to snack, and I’m actually eating more dessert than before this diet because I don’t feel guilty about it anymore (yay decadence). My girlfriend tried the same plan, but something about just knowing about the budget makes her feel totally trapped and she ends up binge eating snacks almost out of “revenge” after a few days. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

neves 3y ago

Interesting to know that you don't need to become a dull and boring person without social live if you want to do TRE :-) The interesting bit for me: "Participants in the TRE group were adherent with their eating window on a mean (SD) of 6.1 (0.8) days per week" I like TRE, but I don't follow it religiously. Some day of the week I will drink a wine with my partner or drink a beer with my friends. The night I drink I also eat a breakfast the morning after. Nice to know that it works if sometimes you fail to follow.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
People also have some luck on other diets by having a "cheat day" one day every week or so. I mean, eating well 85% of the time is better than not doing it at all and most folks will still run an overall calorie deficit. And for a lot of people, if they can make 75-85% of their food decently healthy, they'll be better off.

xyst 3y ago

Not surprised. I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption. So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal. Anecdotally, reducing intake works! side note: the sugar addiction was real and “retraining” my body and mind was the real effort. The mental fortitude to ignore the usual junk I grab at the grocery store is well understated.

jitl 3y ago
I increased my sugar intake by 1/2 tbsp brown sugar in the morning and about a fifth of a pint (300kcal) of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream every night, I eat 3 meals a day up from 2, and also lost 20 lbs in 4 months! At the end of the day, it’s all about the numbers — my intake is 1600kcal, and estimated expenditure is 2240kcal – and whatever makes it easy to stick to the plan. For me it’s ice cream.
- bobmaxup 3y ago
  Yes, that is the energy content of the food you eat. Your body still has to metabolize it, store it, and use it. There are sometimes extreme variations on how that takes place between individuals.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    Exactly this. There's still a ton of study needed on gut flora and other mechanisms of metabolising calories. Some people (like me) will almost literally get fat just by walking past the candy isle in the store, my body will suck up every single Joule of energy from any food I ingest. Meanwhile I have a friend who was actually prescribed by a doctor to eat more fat (butter, specifically) every day because they just don't hold on to calories _at_all_. Everything goes straight through. He's been stick thin for the 25 years I've known him, no matter what he eats and how and when.
- 3y ago

kumarvvr 3y ago

I do intermittent fasting. Its basically structured dieting. I fast upto 12 noon, eat no later than 8 pm. But it works only if junk food and processed foods are stopped.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

Calorie restricting for a long time will let your body adapt to live with that. I'm curious what the result would be if you add a cheatmeal every 3-4 days. Note: This is regulated by leptin as far as I know - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin > Leptin’s main function is to help regulate the long-term balance between your body’s food intake and energy use (expenditure). Leptin helps inhibit (prevent) hunger and regulate energy balance so that your body doesn’t trigger a hunger response when it doesn’t need energy (calories). As far as I'm aware. Eating less for a longer time and you're body will reduce energy expenditure and etc.. PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;) PS2. Not an expert. Read a lot about it and this seemed to theory seemed to fit my practical experience with losing weight ( -25 kg. in about 6 months. | from > 100 kg to ~ 77kg ) I think I found the original source: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/bodyweight-regulation-leptin-and-more https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/bodyweight-regulation...

TuringNYC 3y ago
>> PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;) How do you deal with the hunger resulting from high energy expenditure. I find myself famished after a tough workout (interval training / strength training). I realize there are other benefits to interval training / strength training (e.g., endurance, toning, increasing mass), but I wonder if it runs counter to weight loss given how much hunger it induces.
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  Never be hungry, don't overdo eating. Smaller portions, more regularly. I love a handful of cachewnuts. Spread more carbs in the morning, lean to more protein in the evening. Calorie cycling: https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-calorie-cycling https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-calorie-cycling Based on personal experience here. You're doing HITT? It's possible for a short intensive workout ( under 25 minutes) that you're body isn't taking from fat, but trying to get it from food you ingested. That's why it's "suggested" to do lower intensity workouts. If you do heavy training, you can eat more than you did before too. Check https://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/Harris-Benedict-Calorie-Calculator-For-Men.cfm https://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/Harris-Benedict... -> Activity Factor Guidelines There are plenty related root causes, eg. sugar craving. Perhaps add some dextrose to your drink. https://www.polar.com/blog/sugar-and-workouts-how-it-can-help-your-training https://www.polar.com/blog/sugar-and-workouts-how-it-can-hel... Also a lack of vitamins could create cravings ( eg. Because of a lack of sunlight/sleep), you need more vitamins since you workout more. Losing weight is 60-70% eating correctly, the rest is exercise. I'm still inclined to believe that gaining muscle is the best way to go for losing weight/fat as a male. If you do weights: Don't measure you're weight every day ( muscle is heavier than fat), if you want to check that, do it weekly ( preferably with a fat % counter. Same time of day, same water intake. Since it works based on conductivity / water. Water intake can change results slightly). Try the mirror instead. Building muscle is slow, but losing muscle is slow too... ( Less strict "diet", useful for holidays) Cardio is fast, gaining it again is fast too. Ps. If you're always hungry, I think you're going to extreme and you're body is starving versus the exercise you're doing. Note: random thoughts. Feel free to give some feedback so I understand the situation a bit better. Fyi. I'm not considered an expert on the topic. I read a lot + personal experience and experimenting. You're mileage may vary ;)

uberduper 3y ago

In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day. Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime eating habit. Especially if you also shift your sleep window earlier. So if you stop eating at 8PM and make sure you're asleep by 10PM, you're less likely to get hunger pangs.

pard68 3y ago
I lost a lot of weight on a calorie restricted diet, from 215lb to 165lb over the course of a few years. But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. I much prefer things like intermittent fasting or keto, I can think about what I am eating less and it's really raised my quality of life.
- gopher2000 3y ago
  > But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. In the beginning it certainly is. But once I did it for a while, I found that I had developed a mental understanding for what various foods represented in terms of calories and could navigate it with much less effort. I started with spreadsheets and apps. IMO much of the value in calorie counting stems from those early weeks where you suddenly realize how many calories each food represents - and relative to that how filling you find them.
  - pard68 3y ago
    It wasn't so bad for me when I started in college. Everything was prepared in the cafe and had calorie count on it. When I graduated and got married we started making all our own food and that was when it became depressing for me.
nerdface 3y ago
I once heard a great tip to prevent those pre-bedtime snacks. After dinner, brush your teeth as if you’re going to bed. Your brain already associates that with “no more food” and so programmatically dissuades you from eating. It’s always worked for me.

kraig911 3y ago

If you're a diabetic like me I'd recommend don't do intermittent fasting. I almost died. My blood sugar goes from 300+ to 50ish some days and when I tried this I never felt hunger. I felt like I was about to slip in a coma all day.

kstrauser 3y ago
That's interesting! How long were your fasts?
- kraig911 3y ago
  Basically I was trying to skip lunch. I'd wake up and eat oatmeal, and some protein (usually yogurt) and I'd try and make it to dinner time. No Bueno.
aidenn0 3y ago
Type 1 I assume? TFA was a study on people with Type 2.

T3RMINATED 3y ago

[dead]

curation 3y ago

In my homeless youth I intermittently fasted out of no choice. I was really skinny.

krasney 3y ago

The most recent critiques I've seen for intermittent fasting have to do with how it may not preserve lean body mass unless you are extremely conscientious about getting enough protein (and probably resistance training). That is, if you don't get enough protein during your feeding windows, you'll lose lean body mass along with fat mass, which harms body composition. I'd expect to see the TRE arm losing more lean body mass. Table 2 seems to show this effect. The TRE arm lost more lean body mass and fat mass, although without a difference in visceral fat. If compliance is the issue, I'd be curious to understand what regime can help TRE participants comply with a minimum protein threshold in their diet to minimize the risk of lean body mass loss.

jitl 3y ago
To be fair, any substantial calorie restriction TRE or not means you will lose some muscle/lean mass. I’m not sure table 2 shows evidence that TRE is more detrimental to lean mass than CR given that the TRE group had fewer calories on average than the CR group.
- f311a 3y ago
  It’s possible to minimize the loss by consuming large amounts of protein, but some amount of it will be converted to glucose unfortunately. The difference is very drastic, you can preserve a lot of muscle mass by doing proper diet vs IF. It all adds up when you so it for 6 months.
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
Different intermittent fasting regimens result in different results re: losing lean muscle. The longer intermittent fasting cycles seem to show no significant loss of lean muscle. (i'm way too lazy to go find the studies to back this up claim, but they're out there somewhere)
- f311a 3y ago
  An old fashioned way of fasting preserves muscle mass way better due to hormonal response. It only kicks in after 30-40 hours of fasting. I don’t think that a lot if people practice 3-4 of fasting when doing IF.

01100011 3y ago

Latest I've heard is that it all boils down to calories and that intermittent fasting (time restricted eating or 8/16)makes you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period. Better to eat less calories and consume small amounts of protein throughout the day. https://youtu.be/G3-EW7nWCbU https://youtu.be/G3-EW7nWCbU I tried IF a couple times in my life. First time, coupled with lots of endurance exercise, worked great but I was constantly fighting to retain muscle. Second time I didn't exercise as much but also didn't lose any weight. I did develop extreme post-meal fatigue though, and that has persisted for years since stopping IF.

stevedt 3y ago
> you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period if this is the reason, then wouldn't adjusting your macros to ensure enough protein mitigate this?
- monopoliessuck 3y ago
  The body doesn't store protein in any real capacity. Fat is stored in adipose tissue and carbs in glycogen, but protein must be available in the bloodstream when needed for muscle maintenance and synthesis. Even if you up your dietary protein during the feeding window, if you're fasting for lengthy periods of time where the protein has already been utilized for fuel, then the muscles are starved and catabolic. There's no passive protein depot built into our physiology muscles can pull from.
  - joecool1029 3y ago
    Is it possible some of the area it uses protein from is old cells? I'm thinking parts of digestive system, immune system, old cells it scrubs and reclaims some protein from when fasting. Still catabolic but useful catabolic?
    - f311a 3y ago
      It is called autophagy and happens regularly in our body, but in very small amount. Do experiece greater results, you need prolonged fasting (3-5 days)

2-718-281-828 3y ago

intermittent fasting always leads to calorie restriction in the mid and long run. due to secondary effects like increased insulin sensitivity, less time to eat, more conscious relationship towards food, different food preferences etc.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago

Imo it's still hard to stick to after a while. You're out with friends and want to eat/drink, or you get depressed and want to eat/drink during your fasting window, or you end up eating later than you should due to the time window. I've been struggling with keeping on track lately because I don't have a goal I'm working towards to keep me accountable. I lost a bunch of weight, but then had no real reason to keep it off other than "for health", and now the weight's coming back.

876978095789789 3y ago

> Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 8-hour TRE (eating 12 to 8 pm only, without calorie counting), CR (25% energy restriction daily), or control. Longer fasting periods, including 16/8 TRE and alternate-day fasting, have been shown to cause a disproportionate amount of lean body mass loss: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771095 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... >In this RCT, a prescription of TRE did not result in weight loss when compared with a control prescription of 3 meals per day. Time-restricted eating did not change any relevant metabolic markers. Finally, there was a decrease in ALM in the TRE group compared with CMT. Together, the results of this study (1) do not support the efficacy of TRE for weight loss, (2) highlight the importance of control interventions, and (3) offer caution about the potential effects of TRE on ALM. Future studies should be aimed at understanding the effects of early vs late TRE and protein intake or timing as a means to offset the loss in ALM. ALM = Appendicular (i.e., limb) Lean Mass. One of the authors of this study, Ethan Weiss, is a cardiologist and was a big proponent of TRE, but after the results of his own study came in showing drastic loss of LBM in TRE group (to the point that most of the weight lost was LBM) and no added benefit, he completely stopped doing TRE, stopped recommending it, and went to Twitter and the news media to publicize the harm, eg: https://www.insider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fasting-may-not-boost-weight-loss-2020-9 https://www.insider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fast... X isn't showing his Twitter thread, but there's a copy of it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/j1fav8/effects_of_timerestricted_eating_on_weight_loss/g71eria/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/j1fav8... >In the in-person cohort, the average weight loss in the TRE group was 1.70 kg. Of this, 1.10 kg (~ 65% wt lost) was lean mass; only 0.51 kg of weight lost was fat mass. Loss of lean mass during weight loss is normal but typically accounts for 20% to 30% of total weight loss >So in summary: 1) no matter how you slice it, prescription of TRE is not a very effective weight loss strategy; 2) There was no advantage to TRE when compared to a proper control group; 3) What weight was lost looked to come more from muscle mass than fat mass

jefurii 3y ago

I tried 15h fasting (8pm-11am). It was fairly easy to maintain but it absolutely killed my ability to focus and concentrate while working from home. Then one day I had a nice breakfast and it was like night and day.

haskellandchill 3y ago

[dead]

andrew_gs 3y ago

I restrict myself to a 4 hour eating window, and vary that window daily based on what's convenient to me. So some days I'll go 24 hours between windows if that's how things line up. There are a bunch of advantages for me. I have 3 kids and I always start my window after 10am. Without the restriction I'll end up finishing off their breakfasts and snacking when I'm making their school lunches. Or late at night it's easy to resist the temptation of hot milk and cookies as it's outside of the window. By myself I'm actually a pretty disciplined eater, but with kids and a partner who is a chronic feeder I need the window as a barrier against lazy eating.

shunyaekam 3y ago

Anyone tried intermittent fasting while working out regularly? How did your schedule look?

thirdsun 3y ago
I'm a cyclist that rides anywhere between 200 and 500 Km a week (depending on the season) and does IF 20-4 from monday to friday. I usually eat after work at 4 PM. You can absolutely do low intensity workouts in a fasted state and I regularly do so after work. In fact it helps burning fat reserves. Just don't overdo it. On weekends, when I do my longer and/or more intensive rides I make sure to fuel properly though. I simply ignore fasting on those proper cycling days.

aitchnyu 3y ago

Tangential, are there benefits not caused by calorie restriction? I was convinced my body was repairing itself while fasting, and that my body generates no extra hunger pangs.

d4rkp4ttern 3y ago

After reading Benjamin Bikman’s book (Why we Get Sick) I think the other benefit of IF/TRF besides caloric restriction is that you’re also reducing your “insulin abuse”, I.e you are avoiding having elevated insulin levels for a longer period, which helps with improving insulin sensitivity. This book (highly, highly recommend) makes the case that insulin resistance is at the root of many metabolic and other disorders. I think there’s too much focus on weight loss in these threads, but even those with normal weight and BMI can have issues due to insulin resistance.